Chennai Court August 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1967
Reported in: [1969]72ITR107(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. In this wealth-tax reference, the assessee must, in our opinion, succeed except to a part of its claim. It is a private limited company with its registered office at Madurai. For the assessment year 1959-60, it returned a net wealth of Rs. 47,76,173 as on December 31, 1958, the valuation date. This was arrived at after a deduction of Rs. 30,00,000 claimed to be the provision made for taxes due for the year ended with the valuation date. The Wealth-tax Officer declined to allow the deductions and on appeal a sum of Rs. 10,47,930 was allowed to be deducted. Both the assessee and the department appealed to the Tribunal, which, in effect, restored the order of the Wealth-tax Officer. 2. Of the three questions, the first is : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,15,768, representing the balance of tax for the year ending December 31, 1954, and the sum of Rs. 3,18,129, representing the balance of tax for the year ending December 31,...
Sambamurthy Gurukkal Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ184
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. Since the matter in controversy in this writ petition can be disposed of on a preliminary ground regarding jurisdiction, it is sufficient to state briefly such facts as are necessary for that purpose. The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Sri Purathanavaneswarar Temple, Thiruchitrambalam, Pattukottai Taluk, Tanjore District. It is common ground that a scheme framed by the former Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, as modified in O.S. No. 38 of 1949 on the file of the District Court, West Tanjore, continues to be applicable to the affairs of the temple. That scheme contains a clause, which is to the following effect:The Board shall have power to appoint an Executive Officer for the temple. His salary shall come out of the funds of the temple. The salary and scale of his salary and the conditions of his service shall be governed by the provisions of Board's Order No. 2001, dated 20th July, 1942, as modified from time to time.2. Relying on this provis...
Peer Mohamed and Co. Vs. Mohamed HussaIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ98Mad
T. Venkatadri, J.1. The petitioner, Peer Mohamed & Co., has filed this petition to quash the order, dated 27 October 1964, of the presiding officer, additional labour court, Madras, made in Claim Petition No. 8 of 1964, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 582.33 to respondent 1 employee in an application filed by him under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming back-wages for the period commending from 23 September 1961 to 5 May 1962 and salary for the subsequent period from May 1962 to 80 November 1963, amounting in all to Rs. 1,350.2. Respondent 1 was originally employed under the petitioner on a salary of Rs. 60 per month. His services were terminated without any reason on 23 September 1961. Respondent 1 preferred an appeal under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act before the Commissiner for Workmen's Com-pensation, Madras. The Additional Commissioner, by his order, dated 6 May 1963, set aside the order of termination of the petitioner and ...
O.A.O.A.M. Muthiah Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. the Revenue Divisional ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ107
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The question for decision in this case is a brief one. The petitioner is the owner of a certain land in Valavanur village in South Arcot District, which was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of the District Board High School. It was common ground that he was one of the persons who filed their claims before the acquiring officer, as a person interested in the land. The award was passed on 31st March, 1959. The petitioner admitted that he was not present at the award. But his contention is that, as one of the persons interested in the land and who had filed a claim in respect of it, he was entitled to the statutory notice under Section 12(2) of the Act (Land Acqusisition Act), so that, if aggrieved against the award of compensation, he could apply to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire, for...
Kulandaiswami Madurai and ors. Vs. Murugayya Madurar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad14
1. Defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants. Their only contention is that a Settlement Officer appointed under the Madras Estates Abolition Act (Act XXVI of 1948) having issued a patta in their favour the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title. The finding of the courts below that the plaintiff alone has title to this property is not questioned. The argument is purely a technical one based on Section 56 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act. The patta in favour of the defendants was granted on 21-2-1957 and Section 56 was repealed only thereafter. The argument of the appellants in short is that under Section 56 Sub-section (1) Clause (c) of Act XXVI of 1948, the Settlement Officer has to decide the dispute as to who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is and that therefore the Settlement Officer in this case having decided that the defendants are the lawful ryots in respect of this particular holding, it is not open to a civil court to entertain any suit with...
K. Viswanathan and anr. Vs. K. Ganapathi Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ19
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. The petition is directed against an order of the District Munsif of Madurai Town made on an application by defendants 5 and 6 who are petitioners in this case under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893. It is common ground that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to an undivided half share in the dwelling house in which the petitioners own a third share. The plaintiff is a stranger for all practical purposes though Counsel for the respondent would say that he is a distant relative. The application was for sale of the half share to the petitioners. The Court below dismissed it on the ground that as early as in 1929 the family of six brothers became divided in status and on account of that fact Section 4 of the Partition Act would be inapplicable. The Court below was asked to decide as to whether the house was capable of partition but it stated that the question could be decided only after the receipt of the Commissioner's report.2. It is argued for the petition...
Veera Gounder and ors. Vs. V. Ramaswamy Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ146
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by three persons, Veera Gounder, Kandaswami and Karuppan Chetti. They were elected as members of Veera Gounder, Panchayat, Ward No. 1, in the election held on 2nd February, 1965. Three other persons, namely, Ramaswami Gounder, Annamalai and Govindan, also contested the election. But they secure d less number of votes. The number of votes secured by the candidates is as follows:Karuppan Chetti .. 127Veera Gounder .. 119P. Kandaswami .. 119Ramaswami Gounder .. 78Govindan .. 71Annamalai .. 702. Ramaswami Gounder filed an election petition before the Principal-District Munsif, Salem, who was the Election Court constituted by the rules framed under the Madras Panchayat Act (XXXV of 1958) by Notification No. 10. The election was challenged on the ground that Karuppan Chetti's name had been, deleted in 1963 itself from the electoral roll and therefore, under Section 22 of the Act, he was not qualified t...
A. S. N. M. Idris Ambalam Vs. M. Abdul Hakim.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR733(Mad)
This revision proceeding involves a point of some interest, with regard to the precise effect of section 137(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Act (43 of 1961), in relation to interrogatories served on a party to a suit under Order XI, Civil Procedure Code. The facts are not in dispute, that the interrogatories included one question whether the respondent to the present proceedings had shown a particular amount in his Income-tax return for a particular year. The respondent declined to answer this question, claiming privilege and the learned fourth assistant judge of the City Civil Court has upheld the claim of privilege.I am afraid that the order of the court below proceeds on a misconception, and that the view taken by the learned judge is not correct. Privileges of parties to a proceeding generally are to be found in the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872), particularly such sections as section 22 which relates to communications during marriage, section 126 relating to bar of disclosure of pr...
Daniel Hailey Walcott and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad349; 1968CriLJ1282; (1968)1MLJ229
(1) The appellants in both these appeals, Daniel Hailey Walcott and Jean Claude Donze were separately tried on various charges by the Sessions Judge, Madras. I propose to deal with these appeals in this judgment; but separately, as the points raised in both the appeals are the same though the facts are slightly different.(2) C. A. 810 of 1966. The appellant Daniel Hailey Walcott was charged under ten counts, of which he was convicted on counts Nos. 1 and 3 to 10 and was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the maximum being R. I., for five years, the sentence to run concurrently by Sessions Judge, Madras.(3) The facts of the case which are almost admitted are briefly as follows; the appellant is a national of the United States of America. He landed at Meenambakkam Aerodrome, Madras, at about 6-30 P. M. on 31-12-1965 from Air Ceylon Flight A. E. 207 from Colombo with the British passport in the name of one B. P. C. Comyn, a British subject. It appears that he had visited this co...
Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC227(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. These cases raise the question of the scope of entry 47 in Schedule I to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, more specifically whether the entry includes furnace oil. Besides, certain subsidiary questions also arise, which in most part are covered by authority. The assessee is the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India, Limited, which has been assessed to sales tax for the assessment year 19'64-65. In the first of these cases, there are four items of turnover, a sum of Rs. 2,08,52,235.42 representing the turnover of sales of furnace oil, Rs. 22,234.59 being the turnover of canteen sales, Rs. 1,97,917.20 representing sales of publicity materals, and the last a sum of Rs. 29,660.00 being the aggregate sales of scrap. In respect of the turnover of sales of publicity materials, a penalty of Rs. 1,000 was levied on the ground that there was a failure to return that amount. The assessing officer considered that furnace oil fell within the ambit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »